Not sure what percentage of the oil sands is already foreign owned. If that oil had been sold to China already, how can you refuse to deliver it?

That would be your problem as a Canadian. How can your Canadian resourses be owned by foreign interests if you don't agree to allow it? These choices are in your hands and if you don't have a backbone your excuses are less than useful.

You are correct, the decision if foreign oil companies can own rights is a Canadian decision. It is a social-political decision.

But, Canada in general has down well with investment from other countries - from manufacturing (automotive) to oil. As the mouse beside the elephant, we have benefited by our friend to the south. In a global environment to restrict foreign investment into Canada would probably harm Canada.

The counter which I acknowledge as it pertains to the oil industry - the push and rush is to get the oil out now and faster. The language is structured around, if we do not do it now, we lose the opportunity. This logic assumes, vast new reserves of oil will come online and demand will soon dropped. I think not.

The non-polarizing (them versus us), will maintaining the opportunity for oil export, how do we encourage more processing development in Canada. Admittedly this would be reversing the trend to send raw materials to low cost countries to be transformed (process-mfg) into final products.

I do believe one of the questions not being asked -- do we need to continue and accelerate oil exporting, or better to defer the reserve. If you are the CEO of x-oil company, your job is to maximize old sales now (this quarter) so the answer is faster-faster, but for the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland (resources are provincial), would future generations benefit from a long-term sustainable export.

With respect to 'why' this is happening: We have a multi party '"first past the post" electoral system and even though the majority of voters >60% voted for a central-left party, the vote split was such that it allowed the right wing party to get into power with only 32% of the popular vote. So we have inane and harmful legislation being passed by a majority government that panders to a minority of Canadians. Unfortunately, we had the chance to change that last week and the progressives in the country chose a New Democrat leader who will ultimately fail in uniting the majority of centre left Canadians, so we will have an irrationally ideological right wing Harper government until 2020. By that time, we will resemble China more than Canada and I hope you yanks will see it as your neighbourly duty to liberate us from our facist dickwad prime minister. Those of us on your side will be wearing orange, come when you please.

In a global environment to restrict foreign investment into Canada would probably harm Canada.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the oil sands initially fell in either Crown lands or First Nation Lands. In the first case the resource should be a national property where every Canadian gets a share and every Canadian has a vote on managing it. In the second, it would be up to the First Nations to determine what they want to do with it.

Accepting "foreign investment" is like giving the resource away to foreigners and depriving the rightful owners from their property. It also makes the management of this resource much more complicated. I do not even know if Harper has any say any more over what is international property in Canada.

PGK, I think I get the irony in your statement. Most fellow citizens - old or new appear to be quite passive in historically crucial moments.

I am a fiscal conservative, believe in longterm planning and a believer that government can be good. Given Harper actions reflect neither, I do not support this current government. Aside, my vote goes to the party and member that best represents this. I have seen such responsibility from the Liberal and NDP (provincial), and I have voted for Conservatives in the past too. I belong to no party.

Cougar,

First assuming no issues with our First Nations people, I believe the oil-mineral rights belong to People of the Province. (When I had my prospector license (geophysicists orginally) in the 80s, I was bound by the province (Ontario, Quebec) or territory (NWT)). In the case of Alberta, the people have always been strong force that opposes a Canada view of this resource.

Yes, First Nations has rights unless negotiated to another party, and we have often mis-used negotiations to their harm. I regret this. I support our First Nations people to enforce their rights on the pipeline route.

As far as my reference to the positive benefit of foreign investment. If we look at the investment in manufacturing, refining, technology, et cetera, we see that Canada has benefit from foreign investment. My concern, though I have not previously noted, is this benefit changing. Unfortunately of late, we see many recent investments, look at Rio Tinto or Catepillar as examples, as a form of pillage of the assets. These investments are not benefiting the country, but harming Canada.

In many ways I am a moderate, I do not like radicals, but I do not support the Northern Gateway Project (and stated this to my MP (who is also a Minister)), for I believe the shipping traffic will eventually result in serious damage. I have also stated I do not like the tone or rhetoric they spew.

As far as Harper having any "say" on International Property, I do not think this is a consideration, as his objective is to disassemble Canada (federal) powers. The power is going to the provinces.

The oilsands originally fell under Treaty 11 (maybe 8?) lands but they essentially had no choice. They HAD to re-negotiate and take the payoff. That's why they're all driving $60,000 trucks. It was inevitable that oil was coming out of the ground and they were not going to be the ones to do it. So they took the cash. Probably the single most obvious example of our government's racism in recent memory. Even today that oilsands situation is responsible for the common belief that every FN group is for sale. Canada's greatest black mark as a country.

And yeah, on a sliding scale, I probably land conservative on fiscal and social issues. But I don't give a damn about those issues. I pretty much only care how government acts with respect to the environment. And this one is the worst in our history. These are not your father's conservatives. They're meaner and more ideological.

Oil Spill Risk May Rise In Northwest With Exports Of Coal And Tar Sands Oil To Asia

Like many residents of the San Juan Islands, Johannes Krieger's livelihood is inextricably tied to the sea. He runs kayak and whale-watching tours here in the northwest corner of Washington State.

"Any oil spill would be pretty devastating. An Exxon Valdez type of spill would blanket the entire San Juan Island area," says Krieger of Friday Harbor. "Even a 160-foot luxury yacht striking a rock can make for a pretty big spill."

Krieger, 38, is a lifelong resident of this archipelago, which consistently ranks among the world's top tourist destinations. He is well acquainted with the substantial number of ships that already weave between the islands' 300-plus miles of shoreline, alongside resident orca whales, sea birds, salmon and a sensitive herring population that is critical to the survival of many critters. And he is becoming more aware of proposals to expand U.S. and Canadian oil and coal exports to Asia, which would significantly increase the traffic through these narrow, often rough channels.

The prospect concerns him. "This is a relatively small area that's got lots and lots of rocky islands and reefs. Most of the area is not super deep," Krieger adds. "I understand that industry at this time of our civilization still needs to be out there to some degree, but it needs to be done safely."

Earlier this month, Texas-based energy company Kinder Morgan announced plans to expand its Trans Mountain pipeline running between the Alberta oil sands and a port in Vancouver, B.C. The move would roughly triple the number of deployed tankers operating in the area, each carrying about four times as much crude oil as the Exxon Valdez. SSA Marine, a division of the world's largest cargo terminal operator Carrix, also filed an application this month to build North America's largest coal export terminal just south of the Canadian border -- within sight of the San Juan Islands.

Protesters continue to battle the projects from both sides of the U.S.-Canada border.

Between these two projects alone, approximately 1,700 more large vessel trips would be made in and out of the Pacific Northwest waters that contain the San Juan Islands, known as the Salish Sea, each year. According to the projects' proponents, the region would see a large influx of desperately needed jobs, too. Also on the books are plans for at least five more coal ports in Washington and Oregon, as well as another oil sands pipeline: Enbridge's controversial Northern Gateway, which would terminate a little further north on the B.C. coast. (The Canadian government is making clear that it's not an either-or situation with regards to these westward pipes and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline between Alberta and refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.)

Stefan Freelan, WWU, 2009
It's simple math, according to Lovel Pratt, a San Juan County Council representative: "The more traffic you have, the higher the likelihood of an incident."

One engine failure, bad storm or imperfect maneuver between the reefs, rocks and other ships could mean devastation to the people and marine life that rely on the special ecosystems along these coasts, experts warn. Pratt worries that the challenges and potential consequences could be even greater than with the BP Gulf oil spill, which after two years is still impacting countless lives.

"When the Gulf spill happened, we had days before any of the oil came to any shore. Here, we would have hours. And we're dealing with the unique challenges of our ecology and geography that includes so much coastline and sensitive ecosystems," says Pratt, who has become vocal on the issue since taking office in 2008.

But not everyone thinks that the extra traffic would add up to an increased risk of a spill -- at least not when tighter regulations are put into place.

"SSA Marine has already agreed to create a vessel traffic safety plan that would specify the routes, spacing between ships and docking considerations, so that all of those details would be worked out before the project begins operation," SSA Marine spokesman Gary Smith tells The Huffington Post.

Andrew Galarnyk, a spokesman for Kinder Morgan Canada, notes that tankers have been "safely calling in local waters for more than 60 years without incident."

"While we believe effective spill response capabilities are in place," Galarnyk said in an email Wednesday, "we will continue to support efforts to ensure that appropriate resources are in place for the safe conduct of tankers through local waters."

Capt. Frantz Coe, president of the Puget Sound Pilots, a team of marine pilots that help guide large vessels safely through area waters, says that an increase in risky situations doesn't have to translate into a decrease in safety.

"The expansions will have a big impact. It will create more opportunities for an accident," says Coe, but he added, "Whatever risk they bring, we find a way to mitigate it -- maybe we have two pilots, tug escorts, tell them to run slower, or travel through different meeting points." He notes that he has not been involved in single oil spill to date: "Knock on wood."

In addition to prevention measures, Pratt, the San Juan County Council representative, wants the region to build up its capacity to respond to a spill. The types of petroleum products that might spew into the Salish Sea from these carriers, she notes, may behave quite differently than, say, Gulf of Mexico crude oil or other substances with which we're more familiar.

The bulk coal carriers run on a waste product of fuel oil processing called bunker fuel. "Bunker fuel is one of the most toxic fuels, tar sands oil is worse," says Matt Krogh of the nonprofit RE Sources for Sustainable Communities in Bellingham, Wash.

Unlike conventional crude, the stuff sent west from Canadian oil sands is a mixture of unrefined tar and a cocktail of potentially toxic solvents that allows the thick material to be pumped through a pipeline. The resulting substance may be more difficult to clean up, as responders to the million-plus gallons of spilled tar sands chemicals in Michigan's Kalamazoo River recently learned. Much of this so-called diluted bitumen can sink quickly, raising doubts about the future adequacy of using standard skimmers, floating oil booms and other tools there were enlisted in the BP and Exxon Valdez clean-up efforts.

The exact makeup of the material piped by Kinder Morgan in its Trans Mountain pipeline, how it would behave in large bodies of saltwater and the potential health risks for local residents and clean-up workers remain open questions.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that the Salish Sea straddles the U.S.-Canada border. If the ships are coming out of Canada and don't stop in a U.S. port, explains Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, an oil spill expert with the Washington State Department of Ecology, then Washington State has no jurisdiction. "We bear the risks but have to rely on the Canadian government to set comparable standards and focus on prevention," Pilkey-Jarvis says.

The Canadian government recently shut down a regional oil spill response center.

Of course, the concerns of environmental and public health advocates opposed to the expansion of coal and oil exports go well beyond open-water spills, or even another Kalamazoo River-like pipeline incident. As HuffPost described in November, people argue that SSA Marine's proposed Cherry Point coal port would expose residents to dangerous coal dust and diesel fumes from both the ships and the trains that would carry the coal in from the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming. Then there's the coal-fired power plant pollution that could come back to haunt the western U.S. via winds from Asia.

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber (D) is now calling for an extensive federal government review of exporting coal to Asia through Northwest ports. As The Oregonian reported on Wednesday, the six potential coal export projects in Oregon and Washington could ship more than 150 million tons of coal each year, more than double current U.S. exports.

"When you look at this from a global level, there is this huge sucking sound of the world economy desperate for carbon-based fuels. They're trying to suck it out of the U.S.," RE Sources' Krogh says. "Trying to keep it in the ground wherever it is and trying to remove the market pressure to export is gonna be the key."

As Krogh also acknowledges, even the best the preventative measures and response capacity may not be enough to avoid a catastrophic oil spill.

Krieger, the business owner from the San Juan Islands, recalls a disconcerting incident during one of his kayak lessons. A tug boat was towing two barges when one got disconnected. "That distracted me quite a bit," he says. "Here, I saw this barge starting to float back with the current and then coming closer and closer to shore. Ultimately, the tug miraculously came around and lassoed it back into place."

"This shows you that accidents do happen," Krieger says. "That's the bottom line. No matter how much precaution you take, or how experienced you are, stuff is going to happen."

VICTORIA — During the past few months, the main front in the fight against development of the Alberta-based oil sands has moved to British Columbia. It’s a situation the western-most province is uncomfortable with and an expansion it’s unmotivated to defend.

The aggressive push by the oil sands industry and the Alberta and federal governments to open a new market for Canadian oil through shipments from the West Coast has been met by equally forceful resistance starting at the Alberta-B.C. border.

Anger has escalated since the start of public hearings in January into the Northern Gateway pipeline, proposed by Calgary-based Enbridge Inc., interrupting years of friendly relations between the neighbouring provinces, particularly on energy development.

Indeed, condemnation of the pipeline through B.C.’s rugged north and its associated oil tanker traffic has erupted into the type of popular revolt that is becoming a B.C. mainstay — from the campaign against the harmonized sales tax to the fight to preserve the Great Bear Rainforest and the moratorium on oil tanker traffic and offshore drilling.

First Nations and environmental organizations have been leading the Northern Gateway shakedown, but other stakeholders — from provincial politicians to the business community — have stayed on the sidelines, depriving the debate of much-needed even-handed voices.

Critics are milking a big weakness of Northern Gateway — the benefits of diversifying the market for Canadian oil accrue almost exclusively to Alberta and the rest of Canada through corporate profits, taxes, royalties and employment, while British Columbia’s environment bears the risk of a spill.

As one Vancouver-based business community leader put it: “This is the way it’s played out in B.C.: We are putting a pipeline through the province, triggering massive opposition from environmentalists and First Nations, in order to give Alberta an opportunity to sell energy into Asian markets, and we get essentially nothing out of it. That is why even those who will be sympathetic to the project aren’t as focused or as enthusiastic about it as people outside B.C. seem to believe should be the case.”

There is also worry in the B.C. business community that the protests, the expected litigation and the influx of money from international sources to support the campaign will complicate the operating environment for B.C. business.

“We have been able to get things done in B.C. over the last number of years,” said the business leader, who asked not to be named while the Northern Gateway regulatory review is underway.

Tim Rue/Bloomberg

Condemnation of Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline through B.C.’s rugged north and its associated oil tanker traffic has erupted into the type of popular revolt that is becoming a B.C. mainstay.

“It’s a very challenging place to do business for a lot of companies because of the unresolved aboriginal claims, which means we don’t have treaties, so the legal context is more complex, and we have a much more powerful environmental movement in our politics than you tend to have in other parts of the country. But this project has the potential to see a rallying of not just local but global environmental forces who have their shorts in a knot over oil sands to focus on B.C. as ground zero to save the planet.”

So far, the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway has taken the brunt of the anti-pipeline, anti-oil sands campaign. It’s unclear whether opposition will broaden to a rival plan proposed by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners on April 13 for a $5-billion expansion of its Trans Mountain line.

NIMBYs in B.C.’s Lower Mainland have started mobilizing against increased tanker traffic, even though the pipeline has been safely moving oil and loading it on tankers for 62 years. Vancouver Mayor Greegor Robertson said this week he has a moral obligation to oppose the pipeline.

Recognition that there is inequitable distribution of risks and benefits has started discussion about what could be done to make oil export pipelines more acceptable to British Columbians — particularly First Nations, who are seen as the groups most affected.

Reuters/Mike Sturk

The Alberta government, for example, has been musing about offering benefits to British Columbia from oil sands development. With Alison Redford’s Conservatives getting re-elected by a wide margin on Monday, those efforts are likely to continue.

The Alberta government, for example, has been musing about offering benefits to British Columbia from oil sands development. With Alison Redford’s Conservatives getting re-elected by a wide margin on Monday, those efforts are likely to continue. Ms. Redford has talked during her campaign about building bridges and promoting understanding of how all of Canada benefits from Alberta’s resources.

The federal government has also broached the subject. In an interview, Joe Oliver, the federal Natural Resources Minister, said he has had a number of conversations about it with B.C. Premier Christy Clark.

So far, Ottawa has used primarily the stick to keep the proposed pipelines on track. It is shortening the time required for regulatory reviews and is making it harder for environmental organizations to oppose projects, making them even madder.

For his part, Rich Coleman, B.C.’s Energy Minister, said he welcomes the debate and doesn’t have a problem with the protests. He also said he welcomes Ottawa’s move to shorten regulatory reviews, harmonizing timelines with B.C.’s own.

In an interview, he said it’s too soon to discuss additional benefits from oil pipelines because the regulatory review now underway into Northern Gateway needs to be completed. After that, Mr. Coleman said, B.C. would have a discussion with Ottawa and with First Nations about next steps.

Resource exports are important for Canada, he said, but “solutions have to be worked out by parties to find a way to do it that is environmentally safe, and in such a way that people’s concerns are dealt with. I think that’s what this process is trying to do, and if it’s successful, it is; and if it isn’t, we will have to see what else we can do.”

Observers say there are ways to increase acceptance of oil pipelines, particularly among British Colombians — perhaps a majority — who are quietly supportive of the project, of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government and of the push to increase Canadian trade ties with Asia. Indeed, there are three main areas with potential to appease opposition: Make pipelines and tanker operations both safer and seen-to-be safer, embrace First Nations as partners and increase benefits to the province.

Barb Justason, principal of Vancouver-based Justason Market Intelligence, said pipeline backers need to get the message out that pipelines and oil tankers are safe.

Ms. Justason’s own polling suggests British Columbians are relatively tolerant of Northern Gateway, but are largely opposed to introducing large tankers in the inside coastal passage, an area that is now off limits. “I think it’s going to be about information,” she said. “The B.C. public would have to be convinced that it’s safe, and it’s as simple as that.”

She believes that Enbridge’s main pitch, that its pipeline would create jobs and economic benefits, isn’t enough.

“The thing about B.C. and particularly Vancouver, where half the population is, is most of us are here by choice. Money isn’t the currency it used to be. They want the safety and security of the coast.”

Proponents need to take a step back and engage the province differently, she suggests.

“The idea that this is going to happen to them, rather than with them, is the most worrying thing,” she said. “It’s never worked well here, for someone from the outside to come in and decide what is going to happen.”

What’s missing is a middle ground between the boosters and the detractors that provides a perspective on the true risks of pipelines, said Nathan Elliott, president of Insightwest Research, a Regina-based research firm that works with First Nations on resource development.

“Canada is a pipeline nation,” he said. “When protesters focus on the environmental problems that take place, it overshadows the fact that the environmental record of pipeline in this country is second to none in the world.”

Mr. Elliott said a re-engagement of First Nations — provided their view of Northern Gateway can be turned around this late in the process — needs to focus on environmental protection and sustainability while ensuring vitality of their economy.

“First Nations were this nation’s first entrepreneurs,” said Mr. Elliott, who recently co-wrote The Future Starts Now, a report advocating greater First Nations involvement in the resource economy. “First Nations peoples are assets and they have to assume an equity stake. For far too long these people have been looked upon as liabilities rather than assets.”

There are plenty of successful examples of First Nations that are fully engaged, he said, from the Fort MacKay band near Fort McMurray, Alta., to the Haisla Nation in British Columbia, to the Inuvialuit in the Northwest Territories. Problems arise when they are invited to the table too late, aren’t offered an adequate equity stake or project proponents fail to understand that pipeline politics involves more than the resource, he said.

“It involves the people, the land, the nation and, most importantly, the First Nationhood,” he said.

Enbridge can start by increasing the 10% equity stake in Northern Gateway it has offered to affected First Nations and come closer to the 33% stake offered in the Mackenzie gas pipeline that set a precedent and raised expectations, he said.

Nikki Skuce, a senior energy campaigner with Forest Ethics based in Smithers, B.C., said opposition to Northern Gateway is too strong to salvage the proposal. If Enbridge “had done their aboriginal engagement and public outreach properly at the beginning, they would have realized early on that it was unlikely to get acceptance and they would have proposed a different project altogether,” she said.

She said British Columbians are still making up their minds about TransMountain, which is not as well known.

“As awareness increases, so does opposition, but support as well,” she said. “We’ll see.”

For both projects, major breakthroughs are unlikely while the province gears up for a contentious provincial election, expected in the spring of 2013.

Ms. Clark’s Liberals are trailing in the polls and could well be replaced by an NDP government led by Adrian Dix, who opposes Northern Gateway.

“It is going to be one of the hot-potato issues,” in the campaign, Ms. Justason said. “If [Ms. Clark] knows in her heart she is losing, it would be better for Adrian Dix to get this wrong, and for her to have moved past it, and not be the one holding this hugely broken issue.”

The drag from energy may blunt Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s efforts to brand Canada as an energy superpower. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s March 29 fiscal plan included steps to accelerate environmental reviews of major energy projects.
The opposition New Democratic Party objects to fast- tracking new pipelines, arguing better environmental controls are needed and that Canada should consider refining bitumen at home instead of exporting it to Texas.
“This is the Wild West all over again, breaking down the basic fundamentals and saying that all decisions with regards to oil and pipelines will be political decisions,” Nathan Cullen, an NDP lawmaker from British Columbia, told reporters May 4.
Some 52 percent of British Columbia residents oppose the Northern Gateway ( 37% support) proposal according to a Forum Research Inc. telephone poll taken April 11, up from 46 percent in January. The pipeline, which would carry crude from Alberta to the Pacific Ocean at Kitimat, British Columbia, has been opposed by environmental and aboriginal groups, who say a spill along the coast would be catastrophic.

Opposition to the project was 52 % among 1,069 adults in a random telephone survey conducted on April 11 — up from 46 per cent in January and 45 per cent in December, according to the Forum Research Inc. poll.

The new survey also showed the proportion of British Columbians who support the pipeline declined to 37 per cent in April from 41 per cent in January and December.

Another 11 per cent had no opinion, down from 14 per cent in January and 13 per cent in December.

As I understand the propose changes for review, the scope of engagement is to be reduce. In other words, as a Canadian, I have no say, because the decision affects BC-Alberta. This seems to fit removal of federal to provincial power that our current PM is driving.

Where am I going with this?

I think the previous posts hits the nail on the head. The only people who maybe be able to control-stop this, if this is what you expect, are those who live in BC.

Despite my comments to my MP (Government Whip Gordon OConnor), I feel my voice is on deaf ears. I wish the best for the people of BC, and hope the government hears them.

I live by a pipeline. I have no issues with pipelines.

I maintain the purpose of the diversification is security of demand (also raises prices to) (benefit is to the companies, limited ancillary to their employees), but in a free market society, this diversification is a standard practice.

I maintain tanker traffic to Kitimat is not good, and my objections are based on this.

Pipelines are not evil, some believe their contents are though. I don't...but I do believe a pipeline over the mountains is a recipe for disaster. A cost/benefit analysis would, in my estimation, make it a no brainer, the risk is too high. Surely any type of refining (added value) would benefit local Canadians. In the end the legal voting public should be able to determine the outcome of these issues, not politicians. Local populations, effected populations, MUST have the last say with respect to any development.

Please assure yourselves most US citizens will be pleased, if given the opportunity, to pipe your oil or refined product, through the central part of our country. The "through BC" option is just plain stupid!...